Why I still think EU is the worst one of PI's 4 major series

[LinusLinothorax]

So you haven't played both then? Different UI for nations would still play the same just look different. Tech for Kongo is different to France, different progression, different idea sets if you want to suceed with both. All nations use the same mechanics

So i am right. UI is the same, the mechanics are the same and they only differ from each other that Congo has own NI's and unlock (European) ideas slower. Thats it.

, how would you balance different mechanics across nations?

I dont want balance, i want a historical plausible system, not just ROTW nations which play like Euopean nations in shitty.

Also increasing the number and complexity of the mechanics would require more rescources, if you own a computer that could handle that good for you, no everyone does though.

Weak argument.

 

[Korsan82]

This game in its approach to simulate historical correctness by limiting every non european country's success by making them inferior is totally failing.

By making other cultures inferior they degrade them to playthings to European nations which is plain wrong hisorically. Every aspect of the game is tailored to meet European needs without even considering other approches to solve the problem.

Examples? The chinese wealth was multiple times higher than European.. The income of the Anatolian provinces under Suleyman the Magnificient was 8 times larger than France's total income.

The game simply lacks at least a whole gameplay layer with a different meta game other than event controlled decision making. Even if they decide to add peacetime gameplay it will be incomplete as the peacetime gameplay will again be based upon "click A or B to add flag to province/Country X".

The game needs to get away from this by
- adding character development with character traits for rulers and army leaders/envoys/generals/admirals
- army management with promotion and experience systems
- a direct taxation system which allows you to set taxes manually in provinces (would be a first step to internal empire management, right?)
- appointable governors for provinces (another step to empire management - combined with character traits it gives a lot of interesting possibilities)
- a training and education system especially to heirs which can also be appointed to be governors until they become leaders
- making province investments such as buildings really usefull by adding bonusses (boni?) to characters in that province (combine with heir education maybe - send heir to a province with high level educational/military/trade buildings to increase chance of better GOV/MIL/TRA stats later
- add a simple population model with the option to enact real settlement policies (select province A - set number of people to move - select province B - pay the ducats - voila!)
- add the option to send envoys, especially missionaries to foreign countries to add the religious struggle metagame

I am sure there are a lot of other stuff people come up with.. If only 10% of those good suggestions made by them made it into the game this would have been the most epic game on earth. Instead, it's EU3.5 (yes, i repeat myself).

 

[Aries666]

So i am right. UI is the same, the mechanics are the same and they only differ from each other that Congo has own NI's and unlock (European) ideas slower. Thats it.

No but some people will believe they are right regardless of what you say to them.

 

[ahyangyi]

dont tell lies about the mongols

What lies?

 

[LinusLinothorax]

No but some people will believe they are right regardless of what you say to them.

Translation: My points got destroyed and now i have to say something smart to get myself out of the discussion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am suprised by all the Vicky 2 love in this thread lol

I like Vicky a lot, but boy does it have a lot of problems, like bug problems/mechanic problems that simply are not being addressed.

You mean like advertising cross platform support while inadvertently destroying it and then not fixing it type problems, or advertising hotjoin and then ignoring that it doesn't work for an easy majority of the title's existence (greater than 3/4)?

Bugs in the game are there for all the major titles I've played too of course. Does Vicky advertise anything it doesn't deliver?

 

[Huanglukuzhu]

I got a theory, personally call it GAME FUNCTION.
We could divide a game's all mechanics into 3 parts: input, tanslater, output.
All thing players have done are inputs, then the mechanics trans them in to statics, and make some ingame changes based on those translated statics.

All complains about EU4's lack of depth then are also divided into 3 parts, lack of input depth, lack of translater depth and lack of output depth.

1.People complain about beeing limited to do something: can't change government type freely, can't research techs freely but in line, can't do this or that, is of the first type, I mean lack of input depth. People feel that what they can do is limited and no many choices avaliable.

2.People complain about "click A or B to add flag to province/Country X" is of the second type. IMO this part is where the most serious problems are resualted from. Even we can do many things in EU4, and we could change everything, EU4 is still a bland game, because all our operation and all ingame statics are translated so directly and simply. Religions = some statics modifier, so as government type, so as tech group, so as culture, so as almost everything. Comparing with CK2's dynasty management and VIC2's POP, it needs no skill at all. We may not know what a law-change descision will bring to our nation, but we will definitely know that in EU4. All we could do in EU4 is like a maths game, and even maths game of junior middle school level. We do many things, but except conquering, they are just doing some sum or muti operation.

3. Output is also the problem. The only thing important is conquering, and everything is for conquering. We make alliances, managed to westernize, built buildings, just for improve some statics, and all these statatics are leading to more efficient conquering. Nothing more. Could you gain victory in any other way?

This is a small summary to my theory. I wish others and PI could listen to me but I don't care if they don't.

 

[Mikalos]

What lies?

mongols cannot invade and give up trying before the caspian

I dont want balance, i want a historical plausible system, not just ROTW nations which play like Euopean nations in shitty.
Weak argument.

"computers cannot handle it" is the single most important argument as to why it shouldn't, actually, but thanks for playing, also "i dont want a balanced game!" means nobody in power will ever listen to your dumb shit ideas.


]

 

[Huanglukuzhu]

mongols cannot invade and give up trying before the caspian


]

Why they can't? I've seen their invasion many times.

 

[Mikalos]

Because changes in the game have crippled them most of the time, ending with them losing the dynasty to soime local culture trash who can't make it, then suddenly the aztecs show up and wreck everybodys day.

 

[James The 1st]

2.People complain about "click A or B to add flag to province/Country X" is of the second type. IMO this part is where the most serious problems are resualted from. Even we can do many things in EU4, and we could change everything, EU4 is still a bland game, because all our operation and all ingame statics are translated so directly and simply. Religions = some statics modifier, so as government type, so as tech group, so as culture, so as almost everything. Comparing with CK2's dynasty management and VIC2's POP, it needs no skill at all. We may not know what a law-change descision will bring to our nation, but we will definitely know that in EU4. All we could do in EU4 is like a maths game, and even maths game of junior middle school level. We do many things, but except conquering, they are just doing some sum or muti operation.

That's what all non-dexterity based games are, number crunching. Look at every single strategy boardgame and video game, they are all about numbers.

 

[Huanglukuzhu]

That's what all non-dexterity based games are, number crunching. Look at every single strategy boardgame and video game, they are all about numbers.

But they are not direct number operation games. Look at chess, a strategy boardgame, and you will find every step you made is very hard to value, and very hard to know the consequences. Unluckly, EU4 is not. Everything is as obvious as they were placed on the table.

 

[nalfz]

I think the worst part of it is that pretty much literally everything outside 'declare war and take land' is abstracted beyond all sensibility to three quantities of mana that emanate from your randomly generated ruler. Want to have a large network of alliances? Here, have outdated boats because you don't have enough bird mana. Want to invest money in defending your frontiers? Here, have outdated units because you spent all of your sword mana building forts

It wouldn't even be so bad if there was some level of reason involved in the way you get the points, like you could invest money to gain them rather than just have the majority of it be completely random. Even then, it wouldn't be so bad if paradox stopped trying to pretend that EU4 was some sophisticated historical simulator

It's just risk but it's not honest about it

 

[Old Man Jenkins]

I'd like it if it wasn't so damn random! You march a 30 stack into an 8 stack, and just get curb-stomped because they rolled higher! I tried it again just tonight, but the same thing happens!

 

[Freudia]

It wouldn't even be so bad if there was some level of reason involved in the way you get the points, like you could invest money to gain them

To be fair, this is exactly what advisors are. Investing money to get monarch points. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more ways to generate monarch points (preferably tethered to less random mechanics), but there is a means in the game currently.

 

[nalfz]

To be fair, this is exactly what advisors are. Investing money to get monarch points. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more ways to generate monarch points (preferably tethered to less random mechanics), but there is a means in the game currently.

That's why I qualified the next bit with 'majority'. Base is 3, rulers range from 0-6, the bit you can actually influence is a maximum of 3 so the bit you can actually influence is only 25% of the maximum you can get, with the majority (or more accurately plurality) of it being completely random and totally illogical

 

[Freudia]

That's why I qualified the next bit with 'majority'. Base is 3, rulers range from 0-6, the bit you can actually influence is a maximum of 3 so the bit you can actually influence is only 25% of the maximum you can get, with the majority (or more accurately plurality) of it being completely random and totally illogical

Well, naturally we should just convert all nations to republics at the start of the game.

 

[Aries666]

That's why I qualified the next bit with 'majority'. Base is 3, rulers range from 0-6, the bit you can actually influence is a maximum of 3 so the bit you can actually influence is only 25% of the maximum you can get, with the majority (or more accurately plurality) of it being completely random and totally illogical

Including power projection you directly influence 4 points. On the flip side there is a lot you can do to affect monarch point expenditure, reducing coring cost, annex cost, tech cost etc etc. So actually even with a terrible ruler you still have a lot of influence on mp generation and expenditure and if you have been planning ahead, i.e. using strategy, you are rarely short of mp's.

 

[Freudia]

Including power projection you directly influence 4 points. On the flip side there is a lot you can do to affect monarch point expenditure, reducing coring cost, annex cost, tech cost etc etc. So actually even with a terrible ruler you still have a lot of influence on mp generation and expenditure and if you have been planning ahead, i.e. using strategy, you are rarely short of mp's.

Translation: If you hold back and cover less ground, you'll have more points!

Basically you're suggesting that a player gimps themselves in order to have more points available.

 

[Aries666]

Translation: If you hold back and cover less ground, you'll have more points!

Basically you're suggesting that a player gimps themselves in order to have more points available.

Care to elaborate, this makes no sense to me?